Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Shiva Sai Seeds

DRT8 Apr 2025OA/330/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed an Original Application by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 2.68 crores plus interest from a proprietary firm and its sole proprietrix, dismissing defenses regarding RBI guidelines and limitation due to lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,68,33,473/- with 11.45% p.a. interest; bank empowered to proceed against mortgaged properties and obtain recovery certificate.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Shiva Sai Seeds — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE^gfi DAy oF ApRrL, 2ozs

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.33O of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Munagala Branch, Bodrai Bazar, Main road, Munagal, Suryapet District, TS - 508 233.

¶7

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1, M/s. Shiva Sai Seeds, Situated at D.No.3-90,

¶11

Sy. No. 169 /B2/ 1, Adjascent to Kalkova Road, Syed Muzavarpet Revenue village, Venktramapuram GP Limits, Munagalamandal, Suryapet district - 508 233. Telangana state.

¶12

Represented by its sole proprietrix Mrs. KoriviMamatha.

¶13

Mrs. KoriviMamatha, w/o Chandra Shekhar, aged 34 years, occ: business, R/o 1B-297, Millanna nagar/ Huzurnagarmandal, suryapet district - 508 204. TS sole proprietrix of M/s. Shiva Sai Seeds.

¶14

Counsel for the Parties:

¶15

,'-
i',ihv
I r$lpnrrffi :,
Sfeqdants -. si
Wffii-'r,#

¶16

For the Applicant

¶17

DefendantsNo. 1&2

¶18

Sri MVS Prasad

¶19

Sri Ganglshetty Srinivas

¶20

(oA. No.330/2023)

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,68,33,473/- (Rupees Two crores Sixty eight Lakhs Thirty three thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Three only) with future interest @ 11.45% p.a from date of filing of oA till the date oF realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶23

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by defendant no.2 as its sole proprietrix availed cash credit facility of Rs.12.00 lakhs under MSME for working capital and term loan limit of Rs,86.00 lakhs. The defendants executed composite hypothecation deed, demand promissory note dated 13.10.2016 and memorandum of deposit of title deeds registered vide document no.6433/20t6 dated 04.10.2016. SubsequenUy the defendants availed cash creditlimit was enhanced from Rs.12.00 lakhs to Rs.150.00 lakhs under MSME in CEGSSC for working capital on t4.L2.2OlB. On 30.05.2020 the defendant no.1 firm represented by defendant no.2 availed cash credit of Rs.250.00 rakhs, term roan of Rs.21.50 lakhs and term loan of Rs.36.00 rakhs for running the business. To secure

¶24

of loan the defendants executed co m pos ite l,'i',r*nt""ffi., ll and promissory note dated 02.06.2020. i,^{[8 APR2m}

¶25

W**-P

¶26

(OA. No.330/2023)

¶27

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 23.70.2023. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendant no.1 has not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued demand notice dated 24.70.2023 but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.2,68.,33,473/- (Rupees Two crores Sixty eight Lakhs Thirty three thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Three only) with future interest @ 11.45olo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶28

The Defendants No.1 &2 fired written statement and denied the averments made in oA. The defendants submitted that due to change in poricy of Govt of rerangana state, the Kharif and Ruby seasons, the defendant suffered heavy loss and as such the quantity of paddy for processing into seed with high rate of purchase of stock was procured paddy with row rate. It is submitted that the alleged statement of account is inadmissible in evidence as the same is not certified as per provisions of applicable statutes and not filed any aleged guiderines of RBI to substantiate the craim that the intelgiqqcharged as per the applicable guidelines. Hence 2 exam ned herser ,.ffi :,,;:::::; ;.;' 8*.*r&7'

¶29

(oA. No.330/2023)

¶30

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶31

Heard the arguments.

¶32

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶33

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶34

ii) To what relief ?

¶35

Point No,i):

¶36

Sri Bhokya Ravi Kumar, Branch Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.21 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendants.

¶37

AW.lwas not cross examined by the defendants. Eventhough defendants No.1&2examined themselves as DW.1&DW.2, their evidence is in nowayhelpful tothem. The defendants having taken the plea that the applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines and that the present OA was barred bylimitation,failed to place any ntial proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the

¶38

d. ts exhibited by theApplicant bank makes clearthat all the ocuments are executed by the defendants in the normal transaction. The defendants very vaguely contended that

¶39

(oA. No.330/2023 )

¶40

particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants No.1 to 2.

¶41

Point No.ii)

¶42

B. In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶43

The Defendants No.1 and 2 are joinUy and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,68,33,479/- (Rupees Two crores Sixty eight Lakhs Thirty three thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Three only) with future interest @ 11.45olo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization.;

¶44

The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to oA towards the realization of the debt due.

¶45

{il proceed against the person

¶46

i/^rP properties of defendant no.1

¶47

B8 firm tow realization of the debt due.

¶48

(oA.No.330 /2023)

¶49

The Applicant Bank is entiiled to the costs of the oA.

¶50

L2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶51

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶52

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶53

(Dictated to the P'A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of April, 2025)

sd/ -

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

lRug?otl
Y
,^m:;-ffi'

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Shiva Sai Seeds

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Shiva Sai Seeds

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus Varalaxmi Seed Processing Plant

Mandada Sunitha versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Vaddepalli Anurag

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri. Talluri Hanumantha Rao

Indian Overseas Bank versus Yadiapalli Ramanadham (Died)

State Bank of India versus M/S. Shanthi Aishwarya Industries LLP